selnor said:
Mazty said:
Just because 1 had good textures & 2 is an improvement doesn't mean 2 is instantly amazing as you have to look at the games and how the market has developed since ME1. Which is a hell of a lot.
As you clearly are not looking at what I've noticed, I have far too much spare time and so have highlighted them in the following screenshots:
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8544/vlcsnap2010012512h04m22.png
As you can see the textures for the enviroment are very simple and so are the shadows. On the left during the video the soft shadows are basic, which is seen on the right as there is a very clear distinction between hard & soft, not a gradual change. Hardly top notch graphics and you have to remember, this game runs great on the 8800GT, which is telling about the graphics.
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7648/vlcsnap2010012512h05m09.png
The above link shows how the supposed amazing textures aren't there. Look at the facial hair. It's just texturing, whereas the skin is quite low res bump mapping. Though a mad amout of detail has gone into Shepard who looks ace.
So there we are - exact screenshots from the video at 720p and the game looks ace, but the graphics are hardly the best on the consoles.
|
Again disagree. These screenshots are video captures. Poor video captures at that. motion blur etc affecting the quality of the image on the capture. ( It is Image Shack after all ).
On the Ps3 argument you were making it's interesting to note that 5 months after KZ2 relesed the worlds most influential and greatest graphics designer gaming has ever known had this to say about making Rage. Lets not forget Rage is 60 FPS to.
"CVG details an extensive 10-page feature on id Software's Rage in the latest issue of UK games magazine Edge. The piece includes confirmation by John Carmack that the Xbox 360 version of the game will run at a brisk 60 frames per second, but that he has found PS3 to be at a disadvantage to Microsoft's console in terms of rendering power. "The PS3 lags a little bit behind in terms of getting the performance out of it," he said.
As a result, Edge reports that the game runs at "just 20-30fps" on Sony's console. Carmack places the blame on the PS3's GPU -- the RSX -- saying that, "The rasterizer is just a little bit slower -- no two ways about that...the RSX is slower than what we have in the 360." He sees both consoles as being comparable in terms of raw processing power, however. "The CPU is about the same, but the 360 makes it easier to split things off," he told the magazine. "...that's what a lot of the work has been, splitting it all into jobs on the PS3."
Now, before you go making a comment you can't take back, know that the Edge article doesn't clarify whether or not the performance of the PS3 version will be improved prior to release. It's also telling that Carmack states that the PS3 is only "a little bit slower" than 360 in his findings -- if that's the case, we can't imagine that the finished will run at fully half the speed."
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/30/edge-rage-running-at-60fps-on-360-just-20-to-30fps-on-ps3/
|
How can you disagree with screenshots?!?!?! I played them in VLC player at the same quality as the video. Talk about ignoring what is infront of your eyes. Does that skin realy look high resolution? Of the environment? And what about the clearly sh*t soft shadows which is move obvious when the video is running?!
Yes rage will run faster on 360 because I can guarentee the SPUs will be ignored. Why? Because it's cost effective not to use them and just use the one PPE. This is the case with almost all multiplatform titles and is hardly new news.
To say the CPUs are about the same is nothing shy of stupidity. The Flop fogures are there that disprove that, not to mention its a CPU that can help with graphics unlike every other CPU on the market - ask Guerilla nad Naughty Dog about using the Cell for graphics.
Frankly I'm getting sick of educating people on electronics & economics. Not using SPUs = easier, therefore, cheaper, but less performance.
